Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Restrictions For F-22  
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9246 times:

SecDef Panetta has placed new restrictions on the F-22, and ordered the Air Force to expedite installation of an automatic backup oxygen system in the F-22

Quote:
5/15/2012 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- With safety remaining his top concern, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has ordered the Air Force to take additional steps to mitigate risks to F-22 pilots, George Little, acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said May 15 during a Pentagon news conference.

Beginning in 2008, a few pilots experienced hypoxia-like symptoms when flying the aircraft, Little said. Hypoxia is a deficiency of oxygen. There have been a total of 12 cases of these hypoxia-like symptoms affecting pilots.

Little said the secretary has followed developments in the F-22 closely and has directed the Air Force to expedite the installation of an automatic backup oxygen system in all of the planes.

In addition, effective immediately, all F-22 flights will remain near potential landing locations to enable quick recovery and landing should a pilot encounter unanticipated physiological conditions during flight, Little said.


Full story here:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123302134


The story doesn't specify what "remain near potential landing locations" means, but in another story, they used the term "proximate distance" of an airfield and said this order would cause F-22 air patrols over Alaska to be halted until the problem is remedied.

[Edited 2012-05-15 14:32:57]


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9105 times:

Quoting moose135 (Thread starter):
Beginning in 2008, a few pilots experienced hypoxia-like symptoms when flying the aircraft, Little said. Hypoxia is a deficiency of oxygen. There have been a total of 12 cases of these hypoxia-like symptoms affecting pilots

I don't get it. Change out the regulator on the oxygen system, or fix some other component - they should be able to fix this in a couple of weeks throughout the fleet. This problem has been known about for some time -why does it take so long to fix?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
I don't get it. Change out the regulator on the oxygen system, or fix some other component - they should be able to fix this in a couple of weeks throughout the fleet. This problem has been known about for some time -why does it take so long to fix?

Because it's an OBOGS and they don't know where the impurities are coming from. They tried adding filters but discovered carbon from the filters in the pilots lungs. For a while they thought it was because they were starting the engines in the hangar , thereby adding exhaust products to the OBOGS mix, at Elmendorf but then they saw the same problem at other bases.....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8996 times:

Quoting moose135 (Thread starter):
said this order would cause F-22 air patrols over Alaska to be halted until the problem is remedied.

Well whoever said that can't think straight...what would be the difference in a unit training over Virginia compared to Alaska.


User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8976 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 3):
Well whoever said that can't think straight...what would be the difference in a unit training over Virginia compared to Alaska.

That is per the DoD - they have imposed a maximum distance it can fly from an airfield, to allow the pilots to land in an emergency.

From: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d=7808fe61d5704c93a4378d93dc38b35e

Quote:
But Panetta said the plane would give up long-distance air patrol missions in Alaska until the planes have an automatic backup oxygen system installed or until Panetta agrees the F-22 can resume those flights. Other aircraft will perform those missions in the meantime.

From that AP story, the specifics of the distance limits are being left up to individual unit commanders and pilots. It's probably a relatively short distance to their training areas in Virginia, say, while a patrol over Alaska would be much longer and take them further away from base.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1672 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8930 times:

What's the bigger blunder...the F-22 or the JSF at this point?

Marc


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8855 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
What's the bigger blunder...the F-22 or the JSF at this point?

I doubt an O2 issue warrants calling an aircraft a blunder by any definition.
However, what is it about this oxygen delivery system that is so special that it provides so many headaches?
Fighter jets have had O2 systems for decades, why is a fix seemingly so hard to fix?

Is it that they can't find the exact source of the problem?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4883 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 6):
Is it that they can't find the exact source of the problem?

Exactly! Can't fix a problem you can't identify accurately.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8479 times:

What advantage does the OBOGS have over the old liquid oxygen converter that makes it so important to retain? How long would it take (or have taken) to replace the system with the tried and true LOX converter?


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8376 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 3):
Quoting moose135 (Thread starter):
said this order would cause F-22 air patrols over Alaska to be halted until the problem is remedied.

Well whoever said that can't think straight...what would be the difference in a unit training over Virginia compared to Alaska.

I'm thinking there are a lot more airfields at hand in Virginia than in Alaska, therefore the ability to be on the ground quickly is more likely, in case of a problem.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8370 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8):
What advantage does the OBOGS have over the old liquid oxygen converter that makes it so important to retain?

The first paragraph of the article here could provide an answer:
http://www.f20a.com/f20obogs.htm



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7816 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8251 times:

So do the F20 and AV8B already have OBOGS?.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8236 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 10):

So, spend a dollar to save a dime?

Aircrafts are more and more like new automobiles... Tried and tested doesn't sell, customers want the fancy new tech.
 



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting francoflier (Reply 12):
So, spend a dollar to save a dime?


If you can eliminate the LOX airman & his trailer you also eliminate the following:

- Onbase LOX Plant
- Deploying the LOX airman & his trailer
- Equipping airlift aircraft to transport the LOX trailer (needs to be vented)
- Retirement, disability, medical benefits for the LOX airman
- LOX airman's tech school
- Bureaucracy associated with the LOX airman. His boss, his boss's boss, awards & decs, performance reports

.. and probably some other stuff I hadn't considered. It adds up



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7816 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8224 times:

LOX is nasty stuff, and it's elimination is a bonus.

However, surely OBOGS has running costs as well.


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

Interesting post here:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/05/f-22-losses

Anyone see 60 minutes?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8020 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 6):
I doubt an O2 issue warrants calling an aircraft a blunder by any definition.
However, what is it about this oxygen delivery system that is so special that it provides so many headaches?
Fighter jets have had O2 systems for decades, why is a fix seemingly so hard to fix?

Is it that they can't find the exact source of the problem?

The F-22 flies and cruises at a much higher altitude than any other fighter in the USAF inventory. While the exact maximum altitude a F-22 is classified, it is generally agreed upon by military analysts that the F-22 is designed to fly at altitude of over 70,000ft. Obviously, any issues with the oxygen generation or the ECS packs is greatly magnified at such higher altitudes.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7816 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7818 times:

What is the advantage of flying so high?.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7798 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
The F-22 flies and cruises at a much higher altitude than any other fighter in the USAF inventory.

Wouldn't that make an even stronger case for the use of LOX? Scrubbing O2 from the atmosphere at these altitudes must be a real challenge.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 13):
you also eliminate the following:

I guess there is more to it than just a guy and a cart.
I imagine handling one of the universe's most powerful oxidizer near aircrafts gorged with fuel and explosives isn't the healthiest or most trivial operation...

Then again, is the whole affair such a burden on the overall operating budget of a large air force? Most other planes still use it so the structure will keep existing, and the next generation of fighters promises to be mostly pilotless, so it would still rise the question of overall benefits vs. cost over time, wouldn't it?

I'm also not very informed in the technical requirements of military aviation so it's a purely non-rethorical question!



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7747 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 18):
Scrubbing O2 from the atmosphere at these altitudes

As far as the OBOGS system goes, altitude isn't a concern. OBOGS systems use bleed air from the engine, not ambient air.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 18):
explosives isn't the healthiest or most trivial operation.

It's a pretty big pain in the butt. The biggest problem is the safety rules that LOX operations impose. From memory, we had a 50m personnel exclusion zone and a 100m vehicle/ignition source exclusion zone around the aircraft during replenishment, during which only the LOX techs could be on the plane.

However, like anything else, these problems aren't insurmountable with a bit of planning and training. And OBOGS systems pose their own problems, as they need to be serviced by specialised equipment at regular intervals. Generally its a pretty easy swap though, like other LRU's


User currently offlinePlayLoud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
What is the advantage of flying so high?.

I'm no expert, but I would imagine flying higher would increase the range of your weapons.

Not only do your AA missiles start from a higher altitude, but they can pick up more speed and have less drag to slow them down due to the thinner air.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2578 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7627 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):

And don't forget the area you can cover with your radar.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7551 times:

Quoting PlayLoud (Reply 20):
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
What is the advantage of flying so high?.

I'm no expert, but I would imagine flying higher would increase the range of your weapons.

Not only do your AA missiles start from a higher altitude, but they can pick up more speed and have less drag to slow them down due to the thinner air.

A problem would be though, flying at FL700 or higher, that aerodynamically the missiles would be less stable. Small aerosurfaces + very thin air means less "bite". This also applies to the aircraft itself, the ailerons/flaperons, whatever you want to call them, will have less effect at that altitude. For sure the F-22 would not be very aerobatic at this altitude. Not that it would find many aircraft at that level in the first place.

Air breathing a/c have zoom climbed to FL1000 fairly frequently, but control authority is usually marginal at best, spins being a not uncommon outcome -- this was an issue with F-104 zooms for example. NASA had a small fleet of NF-104 a/c that had thrusters to maintain attitude control at extreme altitudes. U-2s flying at 70K+ altitudes are basically cruising and not doing much else (except for all the intel being collected, of course). SR-71s, when in service, were basically creating their own local flight regime, surfing on their own pressure wave.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
What is the advantage of flying so high?.

In addition to the weapons issues with AAM's mentioned above it also makes a huge difference in dealing with SAM's and the range of glide weapons like the SDB.

While many SAM's can get up to high altitude their range decreases quite a bit and your reaction time goes up a fair amount as well. A fair number of SAM systems are totally taken out of the equation at that altitude as they can't even get up there. Most SAM's that can get up there suffer reduced performance at that altitude giving the aircraft a much bigger chance of escaping. With a target that can move at a really good clip like the F-22 and that is hard to see it becomes a very very hard SAM target at that altitude, allowing it to take the Air Superiority fight to the enemy in many ways as well as using things like SDB's to gut air defense systems and fight inside of them.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7487 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
What is the advantage of flying so high?.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 23):
In addition to the weapons issues with AAM's mentioned above it also makes a huge difference in dealing with SAM's and the range of glide weapons like the SDB.

In a word, the advantage is energy. An airplane at 70,000ft has a whole lot of potential enegy it can trade for speed or range. The same goes of its weapons. Most missiles have a short enough burn stage in comparison to their range. As BidgJKU says, you are a lot harder to hit at that height than say 35,000ft. The area from which an adversary can actually get himself into a position which offers a firing solution are very limited as the missile and plane will be climbing throughout their interept course. On the other hand your weapons will have far greater range than they would at a lower altitudes.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3871 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks like they're investigating the pressure suit as a source of the problem per this article

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...400m-has-rough-time-during-la.html

sounds reasonable, won't be the first time the problem wasn't in the first system investigated.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 24):
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 17):
What is the advantage of flying so high?.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 23):
In addition to the weapons issues with AAM's mentioned above it also makes a huge difference in dealing with SAM's and the range of glide weapons like the SDB.

In a word, the advantage is energy. An airplane at 70,000ft has a whole lot of potential enegy it can trade for speed or range. The same goes of its weapons. Most missiles have a short enough burn stage in comparison to their range. As BidgJKU says, you are a lot harder to hit at that height than say 35,000ft.

I certainly agree that it's much harder to hit something at FL700 than FL350. One thing would wonder about is the controllabillity of missiles at these altitudes (SDBs as well, I guess). I remember transcripts from Francis Gary Powers after he was released by the Russians indicating that missiles fired at the U-2 were tumbling when they got near his altitude, which was somewhat more than FL700. Seems to me with such a thin medium, you'd need more 'keel surface' to ensure a steady glide. But maybe that's just me.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6635 times:

At what flight level did the SR71 fly? Must have been up there at FL700? The coolest aircraft ever made IMO.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6605 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 27):
At what flight level did the SR71 fly? Must have been up there at FL700? The coolest aircraft ever made IMO.

Actually one of the hottest ! At M=3 (could actually get to about 3.3 or 3.4 depending on conditions, I believe) the wing leading edge would get pretty hot. Heat was dumped into the fuel to make it atomize better in the engine hot section. Not sure the wing would glow dull red, but I think the temp was around 600-700F.

Could cruise at around FL800 or somewhat higher, I believe. Have seen references to 'skipping' out to around 125,000 but I'm a little dubious about that. Loss of control authority could be an issue out there, you're basically in space at that point. Mostly at that altitude the SR-71, and the A-12 before it, were surfing on the pressure wave they were generating. I am not clear exactly how much aerodynamic lift the wings were actually generating. Not sure that would apply to the F-22 as it's a lot slower.

But the A-12/SR-71 were another of Kelly Johnson's triumphs. P-38 Lightning, P-80 Shooting Star, many say the Hercules (I am not certain about that), U-2, and others. There was also a very exotic a/c codenamed Suntan, to use LH2 as a fuel, fly at 100,000 ft, M=2.5 minimum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/other/ch8-3.htm

Cancelled before flown, unfortunately. Probably at the Skunk Works there have been several of these things still-born.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

I know a viggen pilot managed to lock on the SR71 once, but that took a lot of preparation and it lost its lock fast, that thing could fly   For a micro rocket it could have launched from up there? Almost up in space.. I am sure they did the numbers and all that.

There is no cheap way to launch a space craft, we have not solved the anti gravity problem yet.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6573 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 29):
I know a viggen pilot managed to lock on the SR71 once, but that took a lot of preparation and it lost its lock fast, that thing could fly For a micro rocket it could have launched from up there? Almost up in space.. I am sure they did the numbers and all that.

There was a variant of the SR-71 designated M-21 that carried a ramjet drone between the fins. The person occupying the back seat where the RSO would normally be controlled the drone. I believe on the 1st launch attempt, the drone hit one of the fins, damaging it, SR-71 went into a spin. Pilot managed to get out, drone operator not. I don't think this was tried again, and the drones (from Marquardt) were launched from B-52s using a rocket booster to get it up to a speed where the ramjet would work. Boundary layer flow issues and the pressure of the shock wave make launching things in supersonic flight problematic. AAMs can work since they accelerate extremely rapidly away from the launching a/c.

Note that Pegasus is an air-dropped satellite launcher. But from a subsonic a/c (actually ex-Air Canada L-1011).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
There was a variant of the SR-71 designated M-21 that carried a ramjet drone between the fins. The person occupying the back seat where the RSO would normally be controlled the drone. I believe on the 1st launch attempt, the drone hit one of the fins, damaging it, SR-71 went into a spin. Pilot managed to get out, drone operator not.

They had three successful launches of the D-21 drone from the M-21, the fourth had the collision after the engine on the drone failed to start. Both crew ejected successfully from the M-21, but the backseater drowned.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

The SR71 has no rival since its days, it is truly a marvel of technological use back in the days it was developed. Very impressive work from LM. The F35 puts their history to shame.

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6217 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 24):
In a word, the advantage is energy. An airplane at 70,000ft has a whole lot of potential enegy it can trade for speed or range. The same goes of its weapons. Most missiles have a short enough burn stage in comparison to their range. As BidgJKU says, you are a lot harder to hit at that height than say 35,000ft. The area from which an adversary can actually get himself into a position which offers a firing solution are very limited as the missile and plane will be climbing throughout their interept course. On the other hand your weapons will have far greater range than they would at a lower altitudes.

Yeah, I always felt people got the wrong impression of altitude from the U-2 incidents and the cancellation of the B-70. Targets up there are very hard to hit and taking down that U-2 took a lot of custom work by the USSR. Plus the thing is basically a powered glider.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Restrictions For F-22
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Capsule For Nasa posted Tue May 24 2011 22:13:23 by Cadet985
Looking For Reg Info For F-22 At DWF posted Sun Dec 13 2009 09:09:38 by SNATH
Congress Wants 3 New C-37s For Themselves posted Wed Aug 5 2009 17:43:19 by KC135TopBoom
New Career For Buzz Aldrin? posted Fri Jun 26 2009 01:09:36 by Scooter01
New Life For The Buffalo? posted Tue Jun 9 2009 03:31:48 by Connies4ever
New Helicopters For US Army Delivered posted Thu Jul 26 2007 06:44:39 by Zeke
New Aircraft For The Army Golden Knights? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 05:28:31 by Scottieprecord
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Article: "New Dawn For Russian Bombers" posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:25:52 by Lumberton
Aurora - New Fuel For The Fire posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:58:28 by RichardPrice
New Justification For F-22? posted Sat Aug 7 2010 15:40:05 by nutsaboutplanes
New Capsule For Nasa posted Tue May 24 2011 22:13:23 by Cadet985
New Justification For F-22? posted Sat Aug 7 2010 15:40:05 by nutsaboutplanes
New Capsule For Nasa posted Tue May 24 2011 22:13:23 by Cadet985
Looking For Reg Info For F-22 At DWF posted Sun Dec 13 2009 09:09:38 by SNATH
Congress Wants 3 New C-37s For Themselves posted Wed Aug 5 2009 17:43:19 by KC135TopBoom
New Career For Buzz Aldrin? posted Fri Jun 26 2009 01:09:36 by Scooter01
New Life For The Buffalo? posted Tue Jun 9 2009 03:31:48 by Connies4ever
New Helicopters For US Army Delivered posted Thu Jul 26 2007 06:44:39 by Zeke
New Aircraft For The Army Golden Knights? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 05:28:31 by Scottieprecord
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Article: "New Dawn For Russian Bombers" posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:25:52 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format